G.R. No. 106812. June 10, 1997.

TAGAYTAY-TAAL TOURIST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS (SPECIAL NINTH DIVISION) and THE CITY OF TAGAYTAY, respondents.
Civil Law; Land Registration; Petition filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite sitting as land
registration or cadastral court for the entry of new certificates of title is pursuant to Section 75,
Presidential Decree No. 1529.—Respondent City’s unnumbered petition filed on July 14, 1989
with the Regional Trial Court of Cavite sitting as land registration or cadastral court for the entry of
new certificates of title over the properties in its name, is pursuant to Section 75, Presidential
Decree No. 1529.

Same; Same; Purchaser at an execution sale may petition for the issuance of a new certificate of
title to him, subject to the condition that before entry of a new certificate of title the registered
owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.—It is
crystal from the above-quoted provision that upon the expiration of time allowed by law for
redemption of a registered land sold on execution, the purchaser at such sale may petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title to him, subject to the condition that “before entry of a new
certificate of title the registered owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or
annul such proceedings.”

Same; Same; Petitioner had the right to avail of its legal and equitable remedies to nullify the
delinquency sale.—Petitioner had the right to avail of its legal and equitable remedies to nullify the
delinquency sale because, firstly, there was lack of notice to it, and therefore, it was deprived of
due process; secondly, the properties in question became subject of serious controversy brought
about by the filing of a complaint in June of 1976 with the RTC of Cavite in Civil Case No. TG-346
to nullify the contract of mortgage over the properties for lack of authority to execute the contract,
as well as the pendency before the SEC of the dispute as to who were the duly elected directors
and officers of petitioner, which directly affected the validity of their dealing and disposition of the
subject properties, all of which matters were ventilated in petitioner’s opposition to respondent
City’s petition for issuance of new certificates of title in its name; and thirdly, respondent City had
no authority to impose realty tax on petitioner as the properties alleged to have been delinquent
are actually located in Talisay, Batangas.

Same; Same; Issues raised before the RTC sitting as a land registration or cadastral court
involved substantial or controversial matters and, consequently, beyond the court’s jurisdiction.—
The issues raised before the RTC sitting as a land registration or cadastral court, without question,
involved substantial or controversial matters and, consequently, beyond said court’s jurisdiction.
The issues may be resolved only by a court of general jurisdiction.

Same; Same; Relief under Sections 75 and 108 of P.D. 1529 can only be granted if there is
unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of
any party in interest; otherwise, the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an
ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs.—From the foregoing ruling, it is
clear that petitions under Section 75 and Section 108 of P.D. 1529 (formerly Sec. 78 and Sec. 112
of Act 496) can be taken cognizance of by the RTC sitting as a land registration or cadastral court.
Relief under said sections can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or that
there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise, the
case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where
the incident properly belongs.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Estelito P. Mendoza for petitioner.

     Jose A. Mendoza for private respondent.

KAPUNAN, J.:

The instant petition for review on certiorari seeks to reverse the decision1 of respondent Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R.

CV No. 24933 entitled “City of Tagaytay vs. Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corporation”
promulgated on November 11, 1991 and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 24,
1992 denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.

The Court of Appeals’ decision sought to be reviewed affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Cavite, Branch XVIII, dated December 5, 19892 granting respondent City’s unnumbered
“Petition for Entry of New Certificate of Title,” and ordering the issuance in its name of new
certificates of title over certain properties it acquired through public auction to satisfy petitioner’s
alleged real estate tax delinquency.

It appears that petitioner was the registered owner of four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate
area of 220 hectares and covered by TCT Nos. T-9816, T-9817, T-9818 and T-9819 supposed to
be of the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City. The properties were mortgaged on June 7, 1976 to
Filipinas Manufacturers Bank and Trust Company by Benjamin Osias, representing himself as
President and Chairman of the Board of petitioner. Two of the parcels of land, Lot 10-A and Lot
10-B of Subd. Plan (LRC) Psd-229279 and covered by TCT No. T-9816 and TCT No. 9817,
respectively, are more particularly described as follows:

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
TCT No. 9816
CITY OF TAGAYTAY

A parcel of land (Lot 10-A of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-229279, being portion of Lot 10, Psu-
82838, Amd. 4 L.R.C. Record No. 43057, situated in the Barrio of Birinayan, Municipality of
Talisay, Province of Batangas, island of Luzon. Bounded on the NW., and NE., points 7 to 1 and 1
to 2 Lot 10-B on the SE., points 3 to 4, Lot 1-C both of the subdivision plan; and on the SW., points
4 to 7 by property of Agapito Rodriguez x x x x containing an area of SEVENTY FOUR
THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FORTY (74,340) SQUARE METERS, more or less xxx.

TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
TCT No. 9817
CITY OF TAGAYTAY

A parcel of land (Lot 10-B, of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-229279, being a portion of Lot 10,
Psu-82838, Amd. 4., L.R.C. Record No. 49057), situated in the Barrio of Birinayan, Municipality of
Talisay, Province of Batangas, Island of Luzon. Bounded on the NE., points 14 to 1 and 1 to 4 by
property of Angel T. Limjoco; on the SE., points 4 to 5 by Lot 10-B, on the SW., and SE., points 5
to 7 by Lot 10-A, both of the subdivision plan; on the SW., points 7 to 9 by property of Agapito
Rodriguez; and on the NW., points 9 to 12 by Lot 11, points 12 to 13 by Lot 9, and points 13 to 14
containing an area of NINE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN THOUSAND AND EIGHT HUNDRED
FOURTEEN (937,814) SQUARE METERS, more or less xxx.

Owing to a dispute regarding the composition of its set of corporate officers and board of directors,
petitioner in June of 1976, filed a complaint to nullify the aforesaid mortgage with the Regional
Trial Court of Cavite, docketed as Civil Case No. TG-346, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction. The trial court forthwith issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the
Register of Deeds from registering the mortgage and directing it to hold for safekeeping the four
(4) titles covering the properties until further orders.

On August 13, 1979, the trial court rendered a decision3 dismissing the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction stating that the subject matter thereof involved the determination of who were the
legitimate officers of petitioner, a question falling within the jurisdiction of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Said decision was subsequently upheld by this Court in G.R. No. 55521 in
Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corporation vs. Judge Alfredo B. Concepcion, et al. In the
meantime, the parcels of land covered by TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-9817 allegedly became
delinquent in the payment of real estate taxes corresponding to the years 1976-1983 in the
amounts of P131,465.20 and P950,616.11, respectively, resulting in the sale of the said properties
in a public auction on November 28, 1983 to satisfy the taxes. Respondent City itself was the
successful bidder in the public auction sale and was issued a Certificate of Sale on the same date.

On June 30, 1989, respondent City registered the final bills of sale over the lots covered by TCT
Nos. T-9816 and T-9817.

On July 14, 1989, respondent City filed before the Regional Trial Court of Cavite City, sitting as
land registration court, an unnumbered petition for the entry of new certificates of title over the lots
in its name. Said petition was opposed by herein petitioner, alleging that the tax delinquency sale
was null and void for lack of valid and proper notice to petitioner.4

On December 5, 1989, the trial court rendered its decision holding that whatever rights and
interests petitioners may have had in the subject properties had long been lost through
prescription or laches, the dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, finding the petition to be meritorious and sufficiently sustained with preponderant,
legal and factual basis, this Court hereby gives its imprimatur to it and grants the same, dismissing
in the process, the Opposition filed by Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corporation.
Accordingly, the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City is hereby ordered to allow the City to
consolidate the titles covering the properties in question (TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-9817), by
issuing in its favor, and under its name, new Transfer Certificates of Titles and cancelling as basis
thereof, the said TCT Nos. 9816 and 9817 in the name of Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development
Corporation, all of which, being hereby declared null and void, henceforth.

Not satisfied with the above decision, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as
CA-G.R. CV No. 24933, citing the following errors:

I.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FROM WHICH THE
PRESENT APPEAL AROSE DESPITE ITS BEING PREDICATED ON A MISPLACED LEGAL
BASIS.
II.THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF WHATEVER
RIGHTS THE APPELLANT HAS OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HAD ALREADY
PRESCRIBED.
On July 19, 1991, during the pendency of CA-G.R. CV No. 24933, petitioner filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Cavite, sitting as a regular court, a petition entitled “Tagaytay-Taal Tourist
Development Corporation vs. City of Tagaytay, Municipality of Laurel (formerly Talisay), Province
of Batangas, Register of Deeds of Batangas, and Register of Deeds of the City of Tagaytay,”
docketed as Civil Case No. TG-1196,5 assailing the authority of respondent City to levy real estate
tax on the properties covered by TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-9817 on the ground that said properties
are located in the Province of Batangas, and not in Tagaytay City. The case was assigned to
Branch XVIII of the RTC.

On October 21, 1991, petitioner filed a Motion to Suspend Proceedings in CA-G.R. CV No.
24933,6 until the termination of TG-1196 arguing that should the RTC in Civil Case No. TG-1196
rule that respondent City is without authority to levy realty taxes on the properties in question, then
the decision of the RTC of December 5, 1989, subject of appeal in the Court of Appeals, directing
the issuance of new certificates of titles in the name of respondent City over the properties would
have no legal basis. The Court of Appeals did not resolve the motion.

On September 24, 1991, the Regional Trial Court of Cavite in Civil Case No. TG-1196 granted
petitioner’s application for writ of preliminary injunction, enjoining respondents therein from taking
physical possession of the properties and/or offering the same for sale.7

On November 11, 1991, the Court of Appeals promulgated a decision8 affirming the judgment of
the Regional Trial Court in the petition for the entry of new certificates of title. Petitioner’s motion
for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated August 24, 1992.9

Thus, on October 16, 1992, petitioner filed the instant petition on the following grounds:

x x x. The Regional Trial Court of Cavite (Tagaytay City) sitting as a land registration/cadastral
court did not have any jurisdiction to hear and decide respondent City’s petition for entry of new
certificate of title. The respondent appellate Court, therefore, erred in affirming the decision of the
lower court dated December 5, 1989. Assuming that the lower court has jurisdiction, the petition of
respondent City should have been denied considering that the public auction sale of herein
petitioner’s properties was conducted without due and valid notice; and

x x x. In any event, the decision of the respondent Court is premature. The issue of authority of
respondent City to levy real estate taxes on petitioner’s properties, to declare herein petitioner a
tax delinquent and to sell the properties in question is still pending determination by the Regional
Trial Court of Tagaytay City in Civil Case No. TG-1196. The determination of such authority
constitutes a prejudicial issue which must be resolved ahead of respondent City’s petition for entry
of a new title.

In the meantime, on October 21, 1994, the Regional Trial Court of Cavite rendered a decision in
Civil Case No. TG-1196,10 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the instant petition and as a consequence,
the public auction sale of the properties of the petitioner, both covered by TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-
9817 of the Register of Deeds of Tagaytay City, as well as the Certificate of Sale and the Final
Bills of Sale of said properties in favor of the respondent City of Tagaytay City, and all proceedings
held in connection therewith are hereby annulled and set aside, and the respondent Register of
Deeds of the City of Tagaytay is hereby directed to cancel Entries Nos. 21951/T-9816 and
21984/T-9816 annotated and appearing on TCT No. T-9816 and Entries Nos. 21950/T-9817 and
30087/T-9817 annotated and appearing on TCT No. T-9817 regarding the sale of the lots
described therein in favor of the City of Tagaytay.

Moreover, the writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court on September 24 is hereby made
permanent.

SO ORDERED.

No appeal having been taken from the above cited decision by any of the parties, the same had
become final and executory.

Asserting that the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. TG-1196 is material to the
resolution of the petition at bar, petitioner on May 31, 1995 filed a Supplemental Petition dated
May 24, 1995 principally anchored on the following grounds:
x x x. In addition or as supplement to the grounds relied upon in the petition, petitioner seeks the
reversal of the decision (Annex ‘A,’ Petition) and resolution (Annex ‘B,’ Petition) promulgated in
CA-G.R. CV No. 24933 on November 11, 1991 and August 24, 1992, respectively, on the basis of
the following: By a decision (now final and conclusive on respondent City of Tagaytay and the
petitioner) rendered by the Regional Trial Court of Cavite on October 21, 1994 in Civil Case No.
TG-1196 entitled ‘Tagaytay Taal Tourist Development Corporation vs. City of Tagaytay, et al.’ the
respondent City of Tagaytay had been found without authority to levy real estate taxes on the
properties. The public auction sale at which respondent City of Tagaytay allegedly purchased the
properties subject of the petition was annulled and set aside. Similarly, the certificates of sale and
the final bills of sale covering said properties were annulled and set aside. Hence, there is clearly
no basis for the decision (Annex ‘A,’ Petition) and Resolution (Annex ‘B,’ Petition) of respondent
Court of Appeals promulgated on November 11, 1991 and August 24, 1992 in CA-G.R. CV No.
24933.11

After respondent City filed its comment on the supplemental petition, followed by petitioner’s reply
thereto, this Court gave due course to the petition and required the parties to file their respective
memoranda.

We grant the petition.

The issues in the instant petition are: (a) whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Cavite, sitting
as a land registration or cadastral court, had jurisdiction to hear and decide respondent City’s
petition for the cancellation of TCT No. T-9816 and TCT No. T-9817 in the name of petitioner and
the issuance of new ones in the name of respondent City despite serious opposition by petitioner;
(b) whether or not respondent City had the right to levy real estate tax over the properties covered
by TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-9817.

We answer both issues in the negative.

I
Respondent City’s unnumbered petition filed on July 14, 1989 with the Regional Trial Court of
Cavite sitting as land registration or cadastral court for the entry of new certificates of title over the
properties in its name, is pursuant to Section 75, Presidential Decree No. 1529,12 which provides
as follows:

SEC. 75. Application for new certificate upon the expiration of redemption period.—Upon the
expiration of the time, if any, allowed by law for redemption after registered land has been sold on
execution taken or sold for the enforcement of a lien of any description, except a mortgage lien,
the purchaser at such sale or anyone claiming under him may petition the court for the entry of a
new certificate of title to him.

Before the entry of a new certificate of title, the registered owner may pursue all legal and
equitable remedies to impeach or annul such proceedings.

It is crystal from the above-quoted provision that upon the expiration of time allowed by law for
redemption of a registered land sold on execution, the purchaser at such sale may petition for the
issuance of a new certificate of title to him, subject to the condition that “before entry of a new
certificate of title the registered owner may pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or
annul such proceedings.” (italics ours).

Here, petitioner had the right to avail of its legal and equitable remedies to nullify the delinquency
sale because, firstly, there was lack of notice to it, and therefore, it was deprived of due process;
secondly, the properties in question became subject of serious controversy brought about by the
filing of a complaint in June of 1976 with the RTC of Cavite in Civil Case No. TG-346 to nullify the
contract of mortgage over the properties for lack of authority to execute the contract, as well as the
pendency before the SEC of the dispute as to who were the duly elected directors and officers of
petitioner, which directly affected the validity of their dealing and disposition of
the subject properties, all of which matters were ventilated in petitioner’s opposition to respondent
City’s petition for issuance of new certificates of title in its name; and thirdly, respondent City had
no authority to impose realty tax on petitioner as the properties alleged to have been delinquent
are actually located in Talisay, Batangas.

Thus, in the opposition of petitioner to the issuance of new certificates of title to respondent City, it
was vigorously argued that:

That herein oppositor, as owner, should be named as a necessary party or given notice in such a
petition is implicit in the said provision of the law. Were this not so, the provision giving the
registered owner the opportunity to pursue all legal and equitable remedies to impeach or annul
proceedings wherein the entry of a new certificate of title is sought would be rendered nugatory.

The present petition is very clearly a case in point for the simple reason that herein oppositor was
not even named as a party and notice thereof came to it purely by chance. Had it not come to
know of the petition, herein oppositor would have been deprived of the change to have recourse to
the remedies allows it by law.

Herein oppositor to the present petition is essentially anchored upon the fact that the supposed
sale at public auction of the properties in question on November 28, 1983 to the City Government
of Tagaytay was null and void considering that it was effected without any previous legally valid
and effective notice to the owner thereof, herein oppositor.

While it may appear in the records of the Office of the Treasurer of Tagaytay City that a notice or
notices were sent, the same could not have been considered properly addressed to and received
by herein oppositor to warrant the conduct of said sale.

It must be pointed out that this Honorable Court, in its decision dated August 13, 1979, in Civil
Case No. TG-346 disclaimed jurisdiction in that case and thereby tossed the question of the
determination of the lawful directors and officers of oppositor corporation to the Securities and
Exchange Commission. At the time the Tagaytay City Treasurer moved to seek the satisfaction of
the delinquent taxes of oppositor corporation on its aforementioned properties, there was yet
nobody who could validly act for and in its behalf. Any notice covering the scheduled sale of its
properties therefore could not have been deemed effective notice as it must necessarily have
been sent to someone who had no legal personality or capacity to act for it and if said notice was,
in fact, received by anybody, such notice and receipt thereof could not have validly bound
oppositor corporation for failure to act accordingly.

Being aware of the then situation of oppositor corporation which was frozen to immobility by the
decision of this Honorable Court in the aforementioned Civil Case No. TG-346, the Treasurer of
Tagaytay City should have deferred action on oppositor corporation’s property tax delinquency
until such time that it could already perform acts as a juridical person through its officers and
directors certified and recognized as such by the SEC. That is proceeded with the auction sale
after a notice which is invalid rendered the same null and void.

And consequently, the present petition has no valid and legal basis.13

The issues raised before the RTC sitting as a land registration or cadastral court, without question,
involved substantial or controversial matters and, consequently, beyond said court’s jurisdiction.
The issues may be resolved only by a court of general jurisdiction.

In Re: Balanga vs. Court of Appeals,14 we emphatically held:

x x x. While it is true that Section 78 of Act. 496 on which the petition is based provides that upon
the failure of the judgmentdebtor to redeem the property sold at public auction the purchaser of the
land may be granted a new certificate of title, the exercise of such function is qualified by the
provision that ‘at any time prior to the entry of a new certificate the registered owner may pursue
all his lawful remedies to impeach or annul proceedings under executions or to enforce liens of
any description.’ The right, therefore, to petition for a new certificate under said section is not
absolute but subject to the determination of any objection that may be interposed relative to the
validity of the proceedings leading to the transfer of the land subject thereof which should be
threshed out in a separate appropriate action. This is the situation that obtains herein.

Teopista Balanga, the judgment-debtor, is trying to impeach or annul the execution and sale of the
properties in question by alleging that they are conjugal in nature and the house erected on the
land has been constituted as a family home which under the law is exempt from execution. These
questions should first be determined by the court in an ordinary action before entry of a new
certificate may be decreed.

This pronouncement is also in line with the interpretation we have placed on Section 112 of the
same Act to the effect that although cadastral courts are empowered to order the cancellation of a
certificate of title and the issuance of a new one in favor of the purchaser of the land covered by it,
such relief can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or no serious objection is
interposed by a party in interest. As this Court has aptly said: ‘While this section, (112) among
other things, authorizes a person in interest to ask the court for any erasure, alteration, or
amendment of a certificate of title x x x and apparently the petition comes under its scope, such
relief can only be granted if there is unanimity among the parties, or there is no adverse claim or
serious objection on the part of any party in interest; otherwise the case becomes controversial
and should be threshed out in an ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs’
(Angeles v. Razon, G.R. No. L-13679, October 26, 1959, and cases cited therein). x x x.

From the foregoing ruling, it is clear that petitions under Section 75 and Section 108 of P.D. 1529
(formerly Sec. 78 and Sec. 112 of Act 496) can be taken cognizance of by the RTC sitting as a
land registration or cadastral court. Relief under said sections can only be granted if there is
unanimity among the parties, or that there is no adverse claim or serious objection on the part of
any party in interest; otherwise, the case becomes controversial and should be threshed out in an
ordinary case or in the case where the incident properly belongs.15

Petitioner also questioned the validity of the delinquency sale for lack of notice, the effect of which
was to vitiate the sale. Indeed, there is nothing on record to show to whom the notice of the
delinquency sale was sent and who received the same, which is a critical issue considering that at
that time there was a question as to who were the lawful directors and officers of petitioner, the
determination of which was disclaimed by the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. TG-346 and
was thereby thrown into the lap of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In other words, at
the time of the delinquency sale, there was no definite person yet who was clothed with authority
to act for and in behalf of petitioner. There being no evidence that petitioner was notified of the
delinquency sale, the omission rendered the sale null and void.

The assailed decision of the appellate court declares that the prescribed procedure in auction
sales of property for tax delinquency being in derogation of property rights should be followed
punctiliously. Strict adherence to the statutes governing tax sales is imperative not only for the
protection of the taxpayers, but also to allay any possible suspicion of collusion between the buyer
and the public officials called upon to enforce such laws. Notice of sale to the delinquent land
owners and to the public in general is an essential and indispensable requirement of law, the non-
fulfillment of which vitiates the sale.

We give our stamp of approval on the aforementioned ruling of the respondent court. x x x.16
The Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, reasoned out that
petitioner was barred by prescription and laches in questioning the lack of notice of the
delinquency sale because it knew of such sale “at least on 27 November 1984 when it secured
from the Honorable Supreme Court, through its President Eduardo L. Santos, telegraphic
restraining order enjoining petitioner-appellee from consolidating title over the subject
properties.”17

Precisely, the capacity of Eduardo L. Santos as director and corporate officer of petitioner
corporation has been questioned by the other stockholders of petitioner who asserted that Santos
and others made it appear that they are stockholders by virtue of shares traceable from the
unissued shares, which were nullified by the SEC.18 On June 15, 1990, petitioner, et al., filed with
the SEC an action for “Injunction and Damages, with Preliminary Injunction and Enforcement of
SEC Decision” against Eduardo L. Santos and others,19 praying principally that Eduardo L.
Santos and his co-respondents be declared “not stockholders of the corporation and are unlawful
usurpers of the positions of directors and corporate officers of the Corporation.”20

Consequently, knowledge of Eduardo L. Santos of the delinquency sale could not have been
considered as notice to petitioners.

Considering, therefore, that the Regional Trial Court of Cavite acted without jurisdiction over the
case so that its decision is null and void, it necessarily follows that the decision of the Court of
Appeals affirming the RTC’s decision has no leg to stand on.

II
The Regional Trial Court of Cavite, sitting as a land registration or cadastral court, could not have
ordered the issuance of new certificates of title over the properties in the name of respondent City
if the delinquency sale was invalid because said properties are actually located in the municipality
of Talisay, Batangas, not in Tagaytay City. Stated differently, respondent City could not have
validly collected real taxes over properties that are outside its territorial jurisdiction. This is clear
from P.D. 464, otherwise known as the Real Property Tax Code, the pertinent provisions of which
state:

SEC. 5. Appraisal of Real Property.—All real property, whether taxable or exempt, shall be
appraised at the current and fair market value prevailing in the locality where the property is
situated.

x x x.

SEC. 39. Rates of Levy.—The provincial, city or municipal board or council shall fix a uniform rate
of real property tax applicable to their respective localities as follows:

x x x.

SEC. 47. Special Levy by Local Governments.—The provincial, city, municipal boards or councils
may, by ordinance, provide for the imposition and collection of a special levy on the lands
comprised within the province, city or municipality or parts thereof. x x x.

x x x.

SEC. 57. Collection of Tax to be the Responsibility of Treasurers.—The collection of the real
property tax and all penalties accruing thereto, and the enforcement of the remedies provided for
in this Code or any applicable laws, shall be the responsibility of the treasurer of the province, city
or municipality where the property is situated.
The Regional Trial Court of Cavite in Civil Case No. TG-1196 rendered a decision on October 21,
1994 ruling that the properties in question are actually situated in Talisay, Batan-gas,21 hence, the
assessment of real estate taxes thereon by respondent City and the auction sale of the properties
on November 28, 1983, as well as the Certificate of Sale and Final Bill of Sale in favor of
respondent City are null and void. We quote with favor portions of said decision:

As earlier stated herein, the portion of Barrio of Birinayan, Municipality of Talisay, Province of
Batangas, by virtue of the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 338 corresponds to Exhibit ‘1-B’ of
the Plan of Mendez-Nuñez marked as Exhibit ‘1,’ and it is noted that Exhibit ‘1-B’ or that portion of
the Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas given to the respondent City under
Commonwealth Act No. 338 is located below the Tagaytay Ridge which was the boundary
between the Provinces of Cavite and Batangas before the enactment of Commonwealth Act No.
338. Thus, taking into account the above-quoted portion of the explanatory note of Republic Act
No. 1418, there can be no doubt that what had been ordered returned by the law to the
Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas does not extend only to the portion annexed to the
respondent City by virtue of Executive Order No. 336 but also the portion mentioned under
Commonwealth Act No. 338. Besides, the same explanatory note mentions specifically the return
of the two (2) barrios of Talisay, Batangas, and not merely portions thereof, hence the conclusion
is inescapable that Republic Act No. 1418 intended the return of the entire barrios of Caloocan
and Birinayan to the same municipality.

It is beyond my doubt, therefore, that Lots 10-A and 10-B of TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-9817 of
petitioner, which are located in Barrio Binirayan, Municipality of Talisay, Province of Batangas, at
the time Republic Act No. 1418 took effect, are no longer within the territorial jurisdiction of the
respondent City of Tagaytay and since there is no dispute that under the law, the City of Tagaytay
may only subject to the payment of real estate tax properties that are situated within its territorial
boundaries (See Sections 27 & 30, Commonwealth Act No. 338; Presidential Decree No. 464; and
1991 Local Government Code), the assessment of real estate taxes imposed by the respondent
City on the same properties in the years 1976 up to 1983 appears to be legally unwarranted. In the
same manner, the public auction sale, which was conducted by the same respondent on
November 28, 1989, for deficiencies on the part of the petitioner to pay real estate taxes on the
same year, as well as the certificates of sale and the final bills issued and executed in connection
with such auction sale, and all proceedings taken by the respondent City in connection therewith
are all considered by this Court as illegal, and null and void.

In fine, this Court finds from the evidence adduced on record that petitioner has preponderantly
established its entitlement to the reliefs mentioned in its petition.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the instant petition and as a consequence,
the public auction sale of the properties of the petitioner, both covered by TCT Nos. T-9816 and T-
9817 of the Registry of Deeds of Tagaytay City, as well as the Certificates of Sale and the Final
Bills of Sale of said properties in favor of the respondent Tagaytay City, and all proceedings held
in connection therewith are hereby annulled and set aside, and the respondent Register of Deeds
of the City of Tagaytay is hereby directed to cancel Entries Nos. 21951/T-9816, 21984/T-9816
annotated and appearing on TCT No. T-9816 and Entries Nos. 21950/T-98917 and 30087/T-9817
annotated and appearing on TCT No. T-9817 regarding the sale of the lots described therein in
favor of the City of Ta-gaytay.

The above-cited decision has not been appealed and is now final and executory.22

WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent Court of Appeals promulgated on November 11, 1991
and its resolution of August 24, 1992, and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cavite dated
December 5, 1989 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The “Petition for Entry of New
Certificates of Title” of respondent City of Tagaytay is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

     Bellosillo and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.

     Padilla (Chairman), J., On leave.

     Vitug, J., In the result.

Judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.

___________________

22 In a Manifestation dated September 25, 1995, Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera and Emelina

Melencio-Fernando, apprised the Court that on August 31, 1995, they filed a petition before the
Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. No. 38298 for the annulment of the decision on the
principal grounds of lack of due process and extrinsic fraud, alleging that (a) although they had
already brought the subject properties, yet, respondent City did not implead them as proper
parties; and (b) while they filed a Motion for Intervention in the trial court, they opted not to pursue
their Motion for Intervention upon assurances of respondent City that it would file an appeal should
its Motion for Reconsideration of the RTC’s decision be denied; however, respondent City filed a
defective Motion for Reconsideration which was ordered stricken off the record and respondent
City did not appeal for reasons of its own.

Note.—Whether a particular issue should be resolved by the Regional Trial Court in its limited
jurisdiction as a land registration court is not a jurisdictional but a procedural question. (Ignacio vs.
Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 242 [1995]) Tagaytay-Taal Tourist Development Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals, 273 SCRA 182, G.R. No. 106812 June 10, 1997